[ EDITORIAL ]

Wrongful Conviction: Compensate James Richardson

Published: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 12:25 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 12:25 a.m.

The presumption of innocence is — or is supposed to be — a hallmark of justice in the United States. Yet for decades the burden has been on James Richardson to prove that he was innocent of the murder charges brought against him in 1968.

A poor, black citrus picker, Richardson was accused of poisoning to death his seven children in rural DeSoto County. Its county seat of Arcadia is just 47 miles south of Polk's county seat in Bartow.

Richardson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and served 21 years in state prison, five of them on death row. In 1972, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.

In 1988, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune revealed that the children's former baby-sitter admitted to the October 1967 killing of Richardson's children. What's more, then-Gov. Bob Martinez was given information showing that prosecutors did not provide, as required by law, the defense attorney with evidence that would have supported Richardson's claim of innocence.

In response, Martinez — to his credit — appointed a special prosecutor to review Richardson's case. The investigation was led by Janet Reno, who was then the Dade County state attorney and later became U.S. attorney general.

Reno issued a scathing report that cited evidence of perjury and police brutality. Criticizing both the DeSoto sheriff and state attorney at the time, she wrote: "A totally inadequate and incomplete investigation was conducted." Furthermore, Reno concluded that "not only couldn't the state prove James Richardson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but James Richardson was probably wrongfully accused."

In April 1989, Richardson was released from prison. Subsequently a court vacated his judgment, conviction and sentence.

BACKWARD STANDARD

Richardson's release was welcome, but it did not compensate for the fact that, as a direct result of a severely flawed prosecution, he had faced the death penalty, and lost 21 years of his life, his health and his ability to earn a decent living.

He later sought compensation from the state, based on a 2008 law that makes it possible for Florida to award individuals wrongly convicted with $50,000 for each year spent in prison.

Unfortunately, the state attorney at the time challenged Richardson's petition.

In 2009, an administrative-law judge found a clear "absence of evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the judge denied the compensation claim, concluding that Richardson failed to meet the law's burden to prove that he was innocent. That failure was no surprise: Witnesses in the Richardson case and potential culprits in the poisoning murders had died. Evidence (much of it questionable in the first place) had disappeared.

More recent legislative attempts to compensate Richardson were met with indifference or concerns about exposing the state to additional liabilities.

MORAL LEGISLATION

Yet two legislators — Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, and Rep. Dave Kerner, D-Palm Beach — recognize the moral case for compensating Richardson for the state's wrongful actions. They are the sponsors of bills that would compensate Richardson at the same levels authorized under the 2008 law.

Senate Bill 326 and House Bill 227 deserve the support of legislators and the public — and passage this year, before the measure is too late to help Richardson, who is 78.

Only Richardson, not his heirs or representatives, would be able to seek compensation, by the terms of the bills. An exemption to the prove-your-innocence requirement would only apply to people who were convicted or sentenced before Dec. 31, 1979, and had their cases examined by a special prosecutor and charges dropped by a state attorney. The exemption would end in 2018.

If this legislation is adopted, requiring wrongly convicted Floridians in the future to prove their innocence to gain compensation would still cause concern. However, the need for reasonable criteria to prevent frivolous claims and protect taxpayers' interests is understandable.

Richardson was denied fundamental rights — to a fair trial, to liberty. Providing compensation is a small price to pay to this victim of injustice. Do so now, before this poor man is gone.

<p>The presumption of innocence is — or is supposed to be — a hallmark of justice in the United States. Yet for decades the burden has been on James Richardson to prove that he was innocent of the murder charges brought against him in 1968.</p><p>A poor, black citrus picker, Richardson was accused of poisoning to death his seven children in rural DeSoto County. Its county seat of Arcadia is just 47 miles south of Polk's county seat in Bartow.</p><p>Richardson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and served 21 years in state prison, five of them on death row. In 1972, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.</p><p>In 1988, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune revealed that the children's former baby-sitter admitted to the October 1967 killing of Richardson's children. What's more, then-Gov. Bob Martinez was given information showing that prosecutors did not provide, as required by law, the defense attorney with evidence that would have supported Richardson's claim of innocence.</p><p>In response, Martinez — to his credit — appointed a special prosecutor to review Richardson's case. The investigation was led by Janet Reno, who was then the Dade County state attorney and later became U.S. attorney general.</p><p>Reno issued a scathing report that cited evidence of perjury and police brutality. Criticizing both the DeSoto sheriff and state attorney at the time, she wrote: "A totally inadequate and incomplete investigation was conducted." Furthermore, Reno concluded that "not only couldn't the state prove James Richardson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but James Richardson was probably wrongfully accused."</p><p>In April 1989, Richardson was released from prison. Subsequently a court vacated his judgment, conviction and sentence.</p><p>BACKWARD STANDARD</p><p>Richardson's release was welcome, but it did not compensate for the fact that, as a direct result of a severely flawed prosecution, he had faced the death penalty, and lost 21 years of his life, his health and his ability to earn a decent living.</p><p>He later sought compensation from the state, based on a 2008 law that makes it possible for Florida to award individuals wrongly convicted with $50,000 for each year spent in prison.</p><p>Unfortunately, the state attorney at the time challenged Richardson's petition.</p><p>In 2009, an administrative-law judge found a clear "absence of evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the judge denied the compensation claim, concluding that Richardson failed to meet the law's burden to prove that he was innocent. That failure was no surprise: Witnesses in the Richardson case and potential culprits in the poisoning murders had died. Evidence (much of it questionable in the first place) had disappeared.</p><p>More recent legislative attempts to compensate Richardson were met with indifference or concerns about exposing the state to additional liabilities.</p><p>MORAL LEGISLATION</p><p>Yet two legislators — Sen. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, and Rep. Dave Kerner, D-Palm Beach — recognize the moral case for compensating Richardson for the state's wrongful actions. They are the sponsors of bills that would compensate Richardson at the same levels authorized under the 2008 law.</p><p>Senate Bill 326 and House Bill 227 deserve the support of legislators and the public — and passage this year, before the measure is too late to help Richardson, who is 78.</p><p>Only Richardson, not his heirs or representatives, would be able to seek compensation, by the terms of the bills. An exemption to the prove-your-innocence requirement would only apply to people who were convicted or sentenced before Dec. 31, 1979, and had their cases examined by a special prosecutor and charges dropped by a state attorney. The exemption would end in 2018.</p><p>If this legislation is adopted, requiring wrongly convicted Floridians in the future to prove their innocence to gain compensation would still cause concern. However, the need for reasonable criteria to prevent frivolous claims and protect taxpayers' interests is understandable.</p><p>Richardson was denied fundamental rights — to a fair trial, to liberty. Providing compensation is a small price to pay to this victim of injustice. Do so now, before this poor man is gone.</p>